get_document_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., no active document) or the exact return structure. It is transparent about the action, but lacks edge-case behavior details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the operation and enumerates the returned data succinctly. No filler words; every word carries meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description tells an agent exactly what information will be returned (name, path, page count, save status). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or error behavior, but for such a simple retrieval, this is mostly adequate. Minor gap: no statement about behavior when no document is open.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain them. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately avoids redundant parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'document info', listing specific data fields (name, path, page count, save status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pages or get_selection, which retrieve different aspects of the document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied: if you need basic metadata about the active document, you use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_pages or get_visio_status. Guidance is vague but sufficient for a simple getter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.